Jinadasa v. Attorney General – sllr 1984 volume 2 page 234

Brief
In the case between Mudunkotuwage Jinadasa alias Dasa (Appellant) and the Attorney-General (Respondent), the court addressed whether a trial judge is justified in interrogating the jury on their reasoning after a clear and unambiguous verdict, and whether the facts properly warranted a conviction for murder or only for culpable homicide not amounting to murder under the Penal Code. It was determined that the trial judge exceeded the permissible scope outlined by Sections 235(1) and 235(2) of the Criminal Procedure Act by probing the jury’s rationale and redirecting them on alternate legal grounds after an unequivocal initial verdict. The legal principle reaffirmed is that the independence of the jury’s verdict must be respected if clear and unambiguous, and judicial intervention is c